4 ms·

You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? Britain is a parliamentary democracy. I'm pretty co

by tcldr 3y ago

You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? Britain is a parliamentary democracy. I'm pretty confident Charlie doesn't have a hand in enabling sweeping snooping powers. More hacking scandals are the last thing his poor family needs!

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? It's not. It still has power, and it's still costing tax payers a shitton so one family can live above everyone else. More importantly there are plenty of royalists who support it.
- tcldr 3y ago
  What interests do you think they have in boosting surveillance powers?
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    What interest do UK authorities have in being so petty as to charge people for 'stealing' less than 10p in electricity? I'd say the answers are related.
    - tcldr 3y ago
      > I'd say the answers are related. How so?
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        Provide the answer to the question I asked and we can discuss it.
- bananapub 3y ago
  christ alive buddy. the royal family costs the UK tax payer ~100m a year[0], which is about the cost of the three nuclear bombs in the US or less than one of the ill-advised F-32 purchases Australia is making. it's also maybe a 1/10th of the amount of money stolen by Tory mates for their various PPE crimes during the early pandemic. every country has very very dumb shit they piss money up the wall over, but it's not a game changing amount of money. 0: dodgy source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-costs-king-charles-b1009296.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-cos...
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    That's ~100m that could be put towards things that actually help people and improve peoples lives.
    - BookhouseGames 3y ago
      India could put a craft on the moon for that.
    - bananapub 3y ago
      if the UK government had an extra £100m, rest assured they would not use it to help anyone or improve anyone's lives
    - OJFord 3y ago
      They are net contributors even before tourism. (Massively so after it, but I suppose it'd be hard to say how much of that would remain, especially in the short term, if we had no current monarchy but still the history, buildings, military, etc.)
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > They are net contributors even before tourism. Explain your reasoning, please.
    - tcldr 3y ago

by tcldr 3y ago

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

> You realise the 'anachronistic monarchy' is just a tourist attraction/diplomatic lever at this point, right? It's not. It still has power, and it's still costing tax payers a shitton so one family can live above everyone else. More importantly there are plenty of royalists who support it.

tcldr 3y ago
What interests do you think they have in boosting surveillance powers?
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  What interest do UK authorities have in being so petty as to charge people for 'stealing' less than 10p in electricity? I'd say the answers are related.
  - tcldr 3y ago
    > I'd say the answers are related. How so?
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      Provide the answer to the question I asked and we can discuss it.
bananapub 3y ago
christ alive buddy. the royal family costs the UK tax payer ~100m a year[0], which is about the cost of the three nuclear bombs in the US or less than one of the ill-advised F-32 purchases Australia is making. it's also maybe a 1/10th of the amount of money stolen by Tory mates for their various PPE crimes during the early pandemic. every country has very very dumb shit they piss money up the wall over, but it's not a game changing amount of money. 0: dodgy source: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-costs-king-charles-b1009296.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/how-much-royal-family-cos...
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  That's ~100m that could be put towards things that actually help people and improve peoples lives.
  - BookhouseGames 3y ago
    India could put a craft on the moon for that.
  - bananapub 3y ago
    if the UK government had an extra £100m, rest assured they would not use it to help anyone or improve anyone's lives
  - OJFord 3y ago
    They are net contributors even before tourism. (Massively so after it, but I suppose it'd be hard to say how much of that would remain, especially in the short term, if we had no current monarchy but still the history, buildings, military, etc.)
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > They are net contributors even before tourism. Explain your reasoning, please.
  - tcldr 3y ago